Sharpe portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Mercedes Landete
arXiv:1610.00937v2 [q-fin.PM] 11 Oct 2016
Centro de Investigación Operativa, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain,
landete@umh.es
Juan F. Monge
Centro de Investigación Operativa, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain,
monge@umh.es
José L. Ruiz
Centro de Investigación Operativa, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain,
jlruiz@umh.es
The Sharpe ratio is a way to compare the excess returns (over the risk free asset) of portfolios for each
unit of volatility that is generated by a portfolio. In this paper we introduce a robust Sharpe ratio portfolio
under the assumption that the risk free asset is unknown. We propose a robust portfolio that maximizes
the Sharpe ratio when the risk free asset is unknown, but is within a given interval. To compute the best
Sharpe ratio portfolio all the Sharpe ratios for any risk free asset are considered and compared by using the
so-called cross-efficiency evaluation. An explicit expression of the Cross-Eficiency Sharpe ratio portfolio is
presented when short selling is allowed.
Key words : finance, portfolio, minimum-variance porfolio, cross-efficiency
Funding: The authors are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
for supporting this research through grant MTM2013-43903-P.
1.
Introduction
In 1952 Harry Markowitz made the first contribution to portfolio optimization. In the literature
on asset location, there has been significant progress since the seminal work by Markowitz in 1952,
[17], who introduced the optimal way of selecting assets when the investor only has information
about the expected return and variance for each asset in addition to the correlation between them.
1
2
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
In 1990, Harry Markowitz, Merton Miller and William Sharpe won the Nobel Prize in Economics
for their portfolio optimization theory.
The optimal portfolio obtained by the Markowitz model usually shows high long-term volatility.
This feature has motivated a body of research oriented to control the present error in the Markowitz
model. Since the variance of the portfolio cannot be considered as an adequate measure of risk,
a number of alternative measures have been proposed in the literature in an attempt to quantify
the portfolio variance more appropriately (see [18, 13, 19] among others). Another way to control
the risk in the optimization model is based on setting a minimum threshold for the expected
return. Following that approach, several models which incorporate risk measures such as “safety
measure”, “value at risk”, “conditional value at risk”, etc., have been proposed in order to control
the volatility of the solution. See [1, 14] and references therein.
The incorporation of new restrictions to the problem is also a tool that has been used both to
prevent the risk and to incorporate the knowledge of the analyst in search of the best solution.
New models have emerged in the last years, which include linear programming models, integer
optimization models and stochastic programming models (see [16] among others).
Another important feature of the Markowitz model is its myopia about the future scenario
of potential returns that will happen. For this reason, producing accurate forecasts in portfolio
optimization is of outmost importance. In this sense, forecasting models, factor models in covariance
matrix and return estimation, bayesian approaches, or uncertainty estimates (see [2] and references
therein) are helpful. The need to improve predictions and consider the present uncertainty in
the Markowitz model has motivated the development of what is collectively known as “robust
optimization” techniques. Robust methods in mathematical programming were introduced by [3]
and after studied in a portfolio context by [12] among others.
There exist several methods in the literature aimed at improving the performance of Markowitzs model, but none of these methods can be considered better than the others. To the authors
knowledge, a systematic comparison of the approaches discussed above has not yet been published.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
3
However, in [7] 14 different models are compared on the basis of a number of datasets with different
quality measures. The results obtained show that “none of the sophisticated models consistently
beat the naı̈ve 1/N benchmark”.
Our objective in this paper is to determine the best tangent portfolio, when the free risk rate
asset is unknown or the information on this parameter is not deterministic for a long time period.
The goal is to find a robust portfolio in the sense of a tangent portfolio better than other tangent
portfolios compared withit. To achieve that goal, we use some techniques based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), which provides an analysis of the relative efficiency of the units involved. In
the context of portfolio optimization, several authors have used such DEA techniques, specifically
the cross-efficiency evaluation (like us here), yet with a different purpose (see, for example, [15]).
In the next section we present a brief description of the original Markowitz and Sharpe ratio
models for portfolio optimization, and discuss some of the features related to the solutions and
the efficient frontier that will be needed for the remainder of the paper. In Section 3 we propose
an approach to portfolio optimization based on the Cross-Efficiency evaluation. In Section 4 we
compare our approach with other classical solutions through the study of two pilot cases. And in
the last section we offer a conclusion.
2.
Overview
In this section, we present a brief description of the Sharpe ratio for asset allocation. The portfolio
optimization problem seeks a best allocation of investment among a set of assets. The model
introduced by Markowitz provides a portfolio selection as a return-risk bicriteria tradeoff where the
variance is minimized under a specified expected return. The mean-variance portfolio optimization
model can be formulated as follows:
min
s.t.
1
σP2 = wT Σw
2
(1)
wT µ = ρ
(2)
w T 1n = 1
(3)
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
4
Figure 1
Efficient frontier and cloud of possible portfolios.
The objective function (1), σP2 , gives the variance of the return wT µ, where Σ denotes the n × n
variance-covariance matrix of n−vector of returns µ, and w is the n−vector of portfolio weights
invested in each asset. Constraint (2) requires that the total return is equal to the minimum rate
ρ of return the investor wants. The last constraint (3) forces to invest all the money. We denote
by 1n the n−dimensionall vector of ones. Note that the weight vector w is not required to be
non-negative as we want to allow short selling, whose weight of vector w is less than 0.
This model uses the relationship between mean returns and variance of the returns to find a
minimum variance point in the feasible region. This minimum variance is a point on the ef f icient
f rontier, Wρ . The efficient frontier is the curve that shows all efficient portfolios in a risk-return
framework, see Figure 1.
2.1.
Global minimum variance portfolio
The Global Minimum Variance (GMV) portfolio from the Efficient Frontier (Wρ ) is obtained
∗
without imposing the expected-return constraint (2). The portfolio weights, (wGM
V ), expected
∗
∗2
return (rGM
V ) and variance (σGM V ) are given by
Σ−1 1n
,
1Tn Σ−1 1n
1Tn Σ−1 µ
1Tn Σ−1 1n
1
(4)
1Tn Σ−1 1n
p
The hyperbola of the feasible portfolios is enclosed by the the asymptotes r = c/b ± (ab − c2 )/b σ
∗
wGM
V =
with
∗
rGM
V =
and
∗2
σGM
V =
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 2
5
Hyperbola and the assymptotes for mean-variance efficient portfolios.
a = µT Σ−1 µ,
b = 1Tn Σ−1 1n
and
c = 1Tn Σ−1 µ.
(5)
The expected return of the global minimum variance portfolio, rGM V , is the apex of the hyperbola. Figure 2 represents the hyperbola for the feasible portfolios, the efficient frontier, the global
minimum variance portfolio (GMV) and the asymptotes.
2.2.
Sharpe ratio
The Tangent Portfolio (TP) is the portfolio where the line through the origin is tangent to the
efficient frontier Wρ . This portfolio represents the portfolio with maximum ratio mean/variance.
wT∗ P = arg max √
w
wT µ
wT Σw
s.t.
wT 1n = 1
(6)
Another studied portfolio is obtained by maximizing the same ratio when a risk free asset,
rf , is considered. This portfolio is called the Maximum Sharpe Ratio (MSR) portfolio. The
Sharpe ratio is the expected excess returns (over the risk free asset) per unit of risk. Therefore,
the Maximum Sharpe Ratio (MSR) portfolio is the solution to the model:
wT (µ − rf )
∗
√
wM
=
arg
max
SR
w
wT Σw
s.t.
wT 1n = 1
(7)
6
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
∗
where rf denotes the risk free asset. The allocation wM
SR is known as market portfolio, M . If
the risk free rate is rf = 0, the market portfolio is identical to the tangent portfolio solution of
problem (6).
Capital Market Theory asks about the relationship between expected returns and risk for
portfolios and free-risky securities.
The solution to (7) includes only risky assets. This solution is known as the Market Portfolio
(M ). A line from the risk-free interest rate through the Market portfolio (M ) is known as the
Capital Market Line (CM L). All the efficient portfolios must lie along this line,
CM L :
E(r) = rf +
rM − rf
σ
σM
where E(r) is the expected portfolio return, rf the risk-free rate of interest, and rM , σM , respectively, the return and risk of the Market portfolio M . All the portfolios on the CM L have the same
Sharpe ratio. See figure 3.
The CM L summarizes a simple linear relationship between the expected return and the risk of
efficient portfolios. Sharpe assumed that the total funds were divided between the Market portfolio
(M ) and security f . The inversion is fully invested here.
wM + wf = 1
The expected return of the portfolio is
E(rp ) = wf rf + wM rM
In order to calculate the optimal M SR portfolio of (7) we have to maximize (7) subject to
wT 1n = 1. In [4] we can see how to derive the following expression for the solution of this problem:
∗
wM
SR =
Σ−1 (µ − rf )
1Tn Σ−1 (µ − rf )
(8)
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
7
The risk σ ∗ and the expected excess returns r for the optimal solution to the maximization
Sharpe ratio problem with free risk rf is:
(µ − rf )T Σ−1 µ
1Tn Σ−1 (µ − rf )
p
q
(µ − rf )T Σ−1 (µ − rf )
∗
∗T
∗
σM SR = wM SR Σ wM SR =
1Tn Σ−1 (µ − rf )
∗T
∗
rM
SR = wM SR µ =
Figure 3
(9)
(10)
Efficient frontier obtained from four assets. The Global Minimum Variance (GMV) is the portfolio with
less risk. The Maximum Sharpe Ratio (MSR) is the tangent portfolio located in the Efficient frontier
in the presence of a risk-free asset. The combination of the risk-free asset and the tangency portfolio
(MSR) generates the Capital Market Line (CML). CML is the set of non-dominated portfolios when a
risk-free asset is present.
Tangent portfolios are portfolios usually designed for long-term investors. Most investors tend to
take on too much risk in good times, and then sell out in bad times. Tangent Portfolios are designed
to let investors do well enough in both good and bad times. This lets us reap the long-term benefits
of investing in stocks and bonds with a simple, low-maintenance solution.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
8
r
r
Denote by Wρ f the subset of efficient portfolios, Wρ f ⊂ Wρ , formed for maximum Sharpe ratio
portfolios, i.e., tangent portfolios obtained for some value of rf . Note that, all the tangent portfolios
r
∗
∗
in Wρ f are obtained varying rf from 0 to the hyperbola apex rGM
V , i.e., rf ∈ [0, rGM V ]. See figures
4 and 5.
Figure 4
Different CML lines when the risk-free asset is 0, 0.0013 and 0.0025, and their maximum Sharpe ratio
portfolios.
Figure 5
r
Wρ f set when the risk-free asset is in the interval [0, 0.0025].
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
3.
9
Portfolio selection based on a cross-efficiency evaluation
r
In this section we propose an approach to make the selection of a portfolio within the set Wρ f . This
approach is inspired by the so-called Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and cross-efficiency evaluation methodologies. DEA, as introduced in Charnes et al. (1978) evaluates the relative efficiency
of decision making units (DM U s) involved in production processes. For each DM U0 , it provides
an efficiency score in the form of a weighted sum of outputs to a weighted sum of inputs. DEA
models allow the DM U s total freedom in the choice of the input and output weights. This means
that each DM U0 chooses the weights that show it in its best possible light, with the only condition
that the efficiency ratios calculated for the other DM U s with those weights are lower than or equal
to a given quantity, usually set at 1. Thus, DM U0 is rated as efficient if its efficiency score equals
1. Otherwise, it is inefficient, and the lower the efficiency score, the larger its inefficiency. DEA
has been successfully used in many real applications to analyze efficiency in areas like banking,
healthcare, education or agriculture.
r
Inspired by DEA, we propose to solve the following model for each portfolio (σ0 , ro ) in Wρ f
Maximize
u (r0 − u0 )
v σ0
u (r − u0 )
≤1
Subjet to.
vσ
(11)
∀(σ, r) ∈
r
Wρ f
u, v ≥ 0
u0 ≥ 0
r
In (11), the portfolios in Wρ f would be playing the role of the DMUs, which in this case have one
single input (risk, σ) and one single output (return, r). It should be noted that, unlike the problem
we address here, in standard DEA we have a finite number of DMUs. Obviously, the optimal value
r
of (11) when solved in the evaluation of each portfolio in Wρ f , (σ0 , ro ), equals 1, because there
exist non-negative weights u∗ , v ∗ and v0∗ such that u∗ (r0 − u∗0 )/v ∗ σ0 = 1, and u∗ (r − u∗0 )/v ∗ σ ≤ 1
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
10
r
for the rest of portfolios (σ, r) ∈ Wρ f . These weights are actually the coefficients of the tangent
hyperplane to the curve (efficient frontier) Wρ at (σ0 , r0 ).
r
f
∗
∗
Denote in general by (σM
SRi , rM SRi ) ∈ Wρ the MSR portfolio obtained when the risk-free rate
rf is rfi . This portfolio maximizes the Sharpe ratio (7). Therefore, the optimal solution of (11)
∗
∗
when (σM
SRi , rM SRi ) is evaluated is
u∗i =
1
∗
rM
SRi
− rfi
,
vi∗ =
1
∗
σM
SRi
and
u∗i0 = rfi
(12)
As said before, its optimal value equals 1. Nevertheless, these optimal solutions for the weights
allow us to define the cross-efficiency score of a given portfolio obtained with the weights of the
others.
∗
∗
Definition 1. Let (u∗j , vj∗ , u∗j0 ) be an optimal solution of (11) for portfolio j := (σM
SRj , rM SRj ).
∗
∗
The cross-efficiency of a given portfolio i := ((σM
SRi , rM SRi ) obtained with the weights of portfolio
j is defined as follows
Efi (rfj ) =
∗
∗
u∗j (rM
SRi − uj0 )
∗
vj∗ σM
SRi
(13)
We can see that (13) provides an evaluation of the efficiency of portfolio i from the perspective
of portfolio j.
The following proposition holds
Proposition 1.
Efi (rfj ) =
j
∗
∗
(rM
SRi − rf )/σM SRi
j
∗
∗
(rM
SRj − rf )/σM SRj
(14)
Proof of Proposition 1.
Efi (rfj ) =
j
∗
∗
j
∗
∗
∗
σM
u∗j (rM
(rM
SRj (rM SRi − rf )
SRi − uj0 )
SRi − rf )/σM SRi
=
=
j
j
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
vj∗ σM
σM
(rM
SRi
SRi (rM SRj − rf )
SRj − rf )/σM SRj
(14) provides a different interpretation of the cross-efficiency scores. Specifically, Efi (rfj ) represents the ratio between the excess return by risk of portfolio i with respect to portfolio j when the
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
11
risky-free asset is rj , that is, how bad the Sharpe ratio of portfolio i is compared to the optimal
Sharpe ratio of portfolio j.
Cross-efficiency evaluation (Sexton et al., 1986, and Doyle and Green, 1994) arose as an extension
of DEA aimed at ranking DMUs. DEA provides a self-evaluation of DMUs by using input and
output weights that are unit-specific, and this makes impossible to derive an ordering. In addition,
it is also claimed that cross-efficiency evaluation may help improve discrimination, which is actually
the problem we address in the present paper. DEA often rates many DMUs as efficient as a result
of the previously mentioned total weight flexibility: DMUs frequently put the weight on a few
inputs/outputs and ignore the variables with poor performance by attaching them a zero weight.
The basic idea of cross-efficiency evaluation is to assess each unit with the weights of all DMUs
instead of with its own weights only. Specifically, the cross-efficiency score of a given unit is usually
calculated as the average of its cross-efficiencies obtained with the weights profiles provided by all
DMUs. Thus, each unit is evaluated with reference to the range of weights chosen by all DMUs,
which provides a peer-evaluation of the unit under assessment, as opposed to the conventional DEA
self-evaluation. In particular, this makes possible a ranking of the DMUs based on the resulting
cross-efficiency scores. Cross-efficiency evaluation has also been widely used to address real world
problems, in particular to deal with issues related to portfolios (see [15, 11, 20]). Next, we adapt
the idea of the standard cross-efficiency evaluation to the problem of portfolio selection we address
here. In order to do so, we first define the cross-efficiency score of a given portfolio, which is the
r
measure that will be used for the selection of portfolios among those in Wρ f .
3.1.
Cross-efficiency Sharpe ratio portfolio
In this section we present the average cross-eficiency measure for any portfolio (σ, r) ∈ Wρ and
obtain an expression for the Maximum Cross-Efficiency Sharpe Ratio portfolio (MCESR).
Definition 2. Let rf be the risk-free rate, which satisfies rf ∈ [rmin , rmax ], then the average
∗
∗
cross-efficiency score (CEi ) of portfolio i, i = (σM
SRi , rM SRi ) ∈ Wρ with ri ∈ [rmin , rmax ], is given by:
CEi =
1
rmax − rmin
Z
rmax
Efi (rf ) drf
rmin
(15)
12
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Note that the expression (15) is a natural extension of the cross-efficiency evaluation in DEA for
a continuous frontier. Using the expression of Efi (rfj ), see equation (14), the cross efficiency CEi
can be written as:
CEi =
∗
rM
1
SRi
I1 − ∗
I2
∗
σM SRi
σM SRi
(16)
where,
1
I1 =
rmax − rmin
Z
1
I1 =
rmax − rmin
Z
rmax
rmin
rmax
rmin
∗
σM
SRf
∗
rM
SRf − rf
∗
σM
SRf rf
∗
rM
SRf − rf
drf
(17)
drf
(18)
∗
∗
Proposition 2. The efficient portfolio i = (σM
SRi , rM SRi ) that maximizes the cross-efficiency
CEi , in the interval [r1 , r2 ], is reached when
∗
∗
ri∗ = rGM
V + σGM V
Proof of Proposition 2.
∗
∗
rM
rM
SR2 − r2
SR1 − r1
−
∗
∗
σ
σM
SR1
∗M SR2
∗
rM SR2 − r2 rGM
V − r2
−
σ∗
∗
σGM
M SR2
V
ln ∗
∗
rM SR1 − r1 rGM
−
r
1
V
−
∗
∗
σM SR1
σGM V
See the appendix.
(19)
∗
Corollary 1. The maximum cross-efficiency (MCESR) portfolio in the interval [0, rGM
V ] is
reached when
∗
∗
ri∗ = rGM
V + σGM V
∗
∗
rM
r∗
SR2 − rGM V
− T∗ P
∗
σM SR2
σ
∗
∗T P
∗
∗
rM SR2 − rGM V
rT P
rGM
V
ln
− ln
− ∗
∗
σM
σT∗ P σGM
SR2
V
and, we can write the above expression as:
∗
ri∗ = rGM
V
mT P
mah
−
mGM V
GM V
,
1 − m
mT P mGM V
−
ln
mah
mah
where
(20)
(21)
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
13
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
mah = (rM
SR2 − rGM V )/σM SR2 is the slope of the asymptote of Wρ , mT P = rT P /σM SR2 is the slope
of the CML line when rf = 0, i.e., the slope of the linear line from the origin to the tangent portfolio,
∗
∗
and, mGM V = rGM
V /σGM V is the slope of the linear line from the origin to the global minimum
variance portfolio (GMV), see figure 6.
Proof of corollary 1.
It follows from proposition 2.
Proposition 3. There exists a Pythagorean relationship between the slopes of the Tangent and
Global Minimum portfolios and the slope of the asymptote of Wρ .
m2T P = m2ah + m2GM V
Proof of proposition 3.
See the appendix.
(22)
∗
Corollary 2. The maximum cross-efficiency (MCESR) portfolio in [0, rGM
V ] depends only on
Minimal Global Variance and Tangent portfolios.
s
s
rT∗ P
rT∗ P
−
−1
∗
∗
rGM
rGM
V
V
∗
∗
s
s
ri = rGM V
!
!
1 −
rT∗ P
rT∗ P
− 1 − ln
−1
ln
∗
∗
rGM V
rGM V
Proof of corollary 2.
3.2.
See the appendix.
(23)
No Short-Sales Constraint
This constraint corresponds to the requirement that all asset weights be non-negative. If no short
selling is allowed, then we need to add the non negativity of each weight in vector w to the
maximization Sharpe ratio problem (7),
wT (µ − rf )
∗
wM
SR = max √ T
w
w Σw
s.t.
wT 1n = 1
w≥0
(24)
14
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 6
Linear lines for the global minimum variance and tangent portfolios; and for the asymptote of the
hyperbola.
Markowiz’s original formulation (1-3) included those constraints as an integral part of the portfolio optimization method. Note that the inclusion of these non negativity constraints makes impossible to derive an analytical solution for the portfolio optimization problem (24). Model (24) is not
a convex problem, so it is not easy to solve it. In [24], R.H. Täutäuncäu present a convex quadratic
programming problem equivalent to (24). This new formulation of the problem considers a higher
dimensional space where the quadratic problem is convex when applying the lifting technique that
follows.
It is easy to derive the equivalent problem of (24) as
min
xT Σx
s.t.
xT (µ − rf ) = 1
(25)
x≥0
where the weight vector w of (24) is given by
w=
x
xT 1n
.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
15
Note that problem (25) can be solved by using the well-known techniques for convex quadratic
programming problems.
Although it is not possible to find a closed expression for the the Maximum Cross-Efficiency
(MCESR) portfolio, model (25) allows us to obtain an optimal portfolio, for the maximization
Sharpe ratio problem, and for different values of the risky-free asset. We propose the following
procedure to obtain an approximation to the Maximum Cross-Efficiency (MCESR) portfolio when
no short-sales constrains are present.
1. Dividing the interval [rmin , rmax ] into n equal parts.
2. For (i=1 to n+1), solving (25) with rf = rmin ∗ (n − i + 1)/n + rmax ∗ (i − 1)/n, and obtaining
the the efficient portfolio i = (σM SRi , rM SRi ), ∀i = 1 to n.
3. Computing the solution (u∗i , vi∗ , u∗i0 ) of problem (11) through expressions (12). Note that is
not necessary to solve the problem (11), the solution of the problem is the tangent hyperplane to
efficient curve Wρ .
4. For (i=1 to n+1), calculating the cross-efficiency (CEi ) of portfolio i as the mean of the
efficiency score of portfolio i by using the optimal weights of the remaining portfolios in the interval,
i.e.,
CEi =
n+1
j
∗
∗
1 X (rM
SRi − rf )/σM SRi
j
∗
∗
n + 1 j=1 (rM
SRj − rf )/σM SRj
(26)
5. Obtaining the efficient portfolio i that maximizes the cross-efficiency CEi .
4.
Numerical example
We carried out two computational studies in order to illustrate the proposed approach. In the first
one, we evaluate the goodness of the maximum cross-efficiency portfolio (MCESR) and draw some
conclusions. The second part of the study allows us to compare the (MCESR) allocation depending
on whether short-sales are allowed or not.
The whole computational study was conducted on a MAC-OSX with a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5
and 4GB of RAM. We used the R-Studio, v0.97.551 with the library stockPortfolio, [8]. In our
computational study the required computational time did not exceed a few seconds; for this reason
the times have not been reported.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
16
4.1.
Case 1. EUROSTOCK
In this section we compare the performance of our Maximum Cross-Efficiency Sharpe ratio
(MCESR) portfolio allocation with different Sharpe ratio allocations on a small example with
real data. The set of assets that were chosen are listed in Table 1, and these were obtained from
EUROSTOCK50. We selected the six Spanish assets in EUROSTOCK50.
Table 1 shows some descriptive statistics for the set of assets considered: return (average weekly
returns), risk (standard deviation of weekly returns), and the Minimum and Maximum return. The
first row- block corresponds to the period from 2009 to 2012 (in-sample or estimation period) and
the second row-block to the period from 2013 to 2014 (out-sample or test period); being the las
row-block the aggregate data from both periods. Figures 9, 8 and 7 show the accumulated weekly
returns for the two periods considered and for the entire period.
In order to evaluate the performance of our solution, the Maximum Cross Efficiency Sharpe Ratio
(MCESR), we compare it with the global minimum variance (GMV), tangent (TP) and Maximum
Sharpe Ratio (MSR) portfolios. Table 2 shows the different solutions evaluated in the in-sample
period for the four portfolios considered. The risk-free asset in the interval (0, 0.003) was considered
to evaluate the MCESR portfolio, and we chosse the upper limit of the interval considered by
the risk free to evaluate the Maximum Sharpe Ration portfolio. Note that the optimal MCESR is
obtained when rf is 0.001773.
Table 3 shows the reaching value for each out-sample portfolio, i.e., in the test period. Note that
we divided the out-sample period in three sub-periods of 25 weeks each in order to evaluate the
evolution of the four allocations. In the first 25 weeks, all the portfolios decrease in value, being
the minimum variance portfolio (GMV) the best hold. Returns increase in the next 25 weeks and
in this case the portfolio with the higher volatility (MSR) obtains a better performance. Finally,
for the entire period out-sample, the GMV portfolio is the only one that provides benefits, and the
worst benefit is obtained for the MSR portfolio where the losses outweigh the investment. Note
that this last situation is possible because short sales are allowed.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 7
Case 1. Returns for the total period, from 2009-01-01 to 2014-06-06.
Figure 8
Case 1. Returns for in-sample period, from 2009-01-01 to 2012-12-31.
Figure 9
Case 1. Returns for out-sample period, from 2013-01-01 to 2014-06-06.
17
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
18
Table 1
Case 1. Weekly descriptive statistics returns for 6 EUROSTOCK assets.
BBVA.MC IBE.MC ITX.MC REP.MC SAN.MC TEF.MC
In-sample (Estimation) Period (from 2009-01-01 to 2012-12-31)
Return
0.0026
0.00044
0.0092
0.0022
0.0034
0.00018
Risk
0.0623
0.04268
0.0381
0.0455
0.0587
0.03400
Minimum
-0.1916
-0.1483
-0.1558
-0.1496
-0.1760
-0.0977
Maximum
0.1838
0.1385
0.1292
0.1249
0.1916
0.1139
Out-sample (Test) Period (from 2013-01-07 to 2014-06-02)
Return
0.0056
0.0045
0.0021
0.0036
0.0053
0.0034
Risk
0.0377
0.0287
0.0297
0.0316
0.0335
0.0316
Minimum
-0.0882
-0.0909
-0.0723
-0.0697
-0.0773
-0.0826
Maximum
0.0943
0.0861
0.0669
0.0719
0.0901
0.1102
Total period (from 2009-01-01 to 2014-06-02)
Return
0.0035
0.0014
0.0069
0.0028
0.0040
0.0011
Risk
0.0567
0.0394
0.0365
0.0422
0.0530
0.0333
Minimum
-0.1916
-0.1483
-0.1558
-0.1496
-0.1760
-0.0977
Maximum
0.1838
0.1385
0.1292
0.1249
0.1916
0.1139
Figure 10 shows the out-sample performance for the four strategies considered. We see the high
volatility associated with the MSR (rf = 0.003) portfolio. Note that although the MCESR portfolio
is worse than GMV and TP portfolios, the MCESR provides greater benefits in good times and
contains the losses in the bad ones.
4.2.
Case 2. USA Industry portfolios
For the second numerical example, we selected ten industry portfolios from the USA market. In
the same way as in the case above, we considered two time periods, a first time period to estimate
(in-sample period) and a second period (out-sample) to evaluate the performance of each strategy.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Table 2
Case 1. In-sample results for different portfolio solutions.
GMV – Global Minimum Variance Portfolio
Expected return = 0.00338 Risk = 0.02762
TP – Tangent Portfolio
Expected return = 0.01612 Risk = 0.06025
MSR – Maximum Sharpe Ratio Portfolio (rf = 0.003)
Expected return = 0.1149
Risk = 0.4699
MCESR – Maximum Cross-Efficiency Sharpe Ratio Portfolio (rf = 0.001773)
Expected return = 0.02940 Risk = 0.1129
Table 3
Case 1. Change in portfolio value for the out-sample period, from 2014-01-07 to 2014-06-02.
Portfolio
GMV
Figure 10
First 25 Weeks 50 weeks 75 weeks
-6.1%
5.9%
15.1%
TP
-11.1%
8.6%
-0.3 %
MSR (rf = 0.003)
-49.3%
29.0%
-119.8%
MCESR (rf = 0.001773)
-16.2%
11.3%
-16.4%
Case 1. Out-sample expected returns from 2013-01-01 to 2013-12-31.
19
20
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 11
Case 1. Out-sample expected returns from 2013-01-01 to 2013-12-31.
The data source and the number of observations are shown in Table 4. In Table 5 we keep the
same observations as in Table 1.
Table 4
Case 2
Dataset description.
N In-sample (estimation) period Out-sample (test) period
Ten industry portfolios. 10
Monthly data
Jan 1963 to Dec 2012
Jan 2013 to Jul 2014
(600 observations)
(19 observations)
Source: Ken French’s Web Site.
Table 6 shows the different portfolios in the in-sample period, and for each portfolio we report
their allocation. The risk-free asset in the interval (0,0.9) was considered in order to calculate the
MCESR portfolio, wich leads to obtaining the optimal MCESR rf is 0.57103. If short sales are not
allowed, the optimal MCESR is obtained when rf is 0.576. See Table 7 for the same results as in
Table 6 when short sales are not allowed. Figure 12 shows the efficient frontier of Malkowitz for
both cases, with and without short sales.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Table 5
21
Case 2. Monthly descriptive statistics returns for 10 industry portfolios
NoDur Durbl Manuf Enrgy HiTec Telcm Shops
Hlth
Utils Other
In-sample (estimation) Period (from Jan 1963 to Dec 2012 )
Return
1.1
0.86
0.97
1.1
0.96
0.86
1.0
1.1
0.83
0.92
Risk
4.3
6.36
4.98
5.4
6.59
4.67
5.2
4.9
4.03
5.35
-21.03 -32.63 -27.33 -18.33 -26.01 -16.22 -28.25 -20.46 -12.65
-23.6
Minimum
Maximum
18.88
42.62
17.51
24.56
20.75
21.34
25.85
29.52
18.84
20.22
Out-sample (test) Period (Jan 2013 to Jul 2014 )
Return
1.4
2.3
1.7
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.5
2.4
1.4
1.9
Risk
3.3
4.0
3.2
3.7
2.5
2.8
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.2
Minimum
-5.71
-4.6
-4.33
-6.97
-2.84
-3.94
-6.65
-3.67
-6.96
-4.37
Maximum
5.21
9.9
6.03
7.71
5.97
5.62
5.97
8.11
5.51
6.87
Total Period (Jan 1963 to Jul 2014 )
Return
1.1
0.9
0.99
1.1
1.0
0.89
1.0
1.1
0.85
0.95
Risk
4.3
6.3
4.93
5.4
6.5
4.63
5.2
4.9
4.02
5.30
-21.03 -32.63 -27.33 -18.33 -26.01 -16.22 -28.25 -20.46 -12.65
-23.6
Minimum
Maximum
18.88
42.62
17.51
24.56
20.75
21.34
25.85
29.52
18.84
20.22
In order to compare the performance of four strategies, we evaluated them in the out-sample
period. The expected returns for each portfolio, with and without short sales, are shown in Table 8.
Note that if short sales are allowed, the M SR(rf = 0.9) portfolio originates losses of 14.3%, while
the same strategy portfolio causes a benefit of 33.5% if short sales are not allowed.
The portfolio with less variation with or without short sales is the GMV portfolio. The MCESR
portfolio provides a profit of 25.5% with short sales, and 36.1% without short sales, being this last
profit the highest value for all portfolios considered in both situations.
Figures 13 and 14 show the out-sample performance for the four strategies considered. Note the
high volatility of the MSR portfolio when short sales are allowed in front to the homogeneity of the
rest. If short sales are not allowed, the four portfolios present practically the same curve, although
in this case the MCESR provides the best performance.
22
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Table 6
Case 2. In-sample results for different portfolio solutions. 10 industry portfolios. Short-Sales
NoDur Durbl
Manuf Enrgy HiTec Telcm Shops Hlth Utils Other
GMV – Global Minimum Variance portfolio
Expected return = 0.96 Risk = 3.45
Allocation
0.29
0.00
0.09
0.11
0.02
0.26
0.08
0.15
0.45
-0.44
0.18
0.14
0.17
0.17
-0.58
0.53 -4.15
-2.72
TP – Tangent portfolio
Expected return = 1.09 Risk = 3.68
Allocation
-0.70
-0.05
-0.05
0.30
0.03
MSR – Maximum Sharpe Ratio portfolio (rf = 0.9)
Expected return = 3.08 Risk = 20.84
Allocation
6.85
-0.77
-2.13
3.19
0.24
-1.04
1.01
MCESR – Maximium Cross-Efficincy Sharpe Ratio portfolio (rf = 0.57103)
Expected return = 1.29 Risk = 4.67
Allocation
Table 7
1.29
-0.12
-0.25
0.58
0.05
0.06
0.22
0.21 -0.26
-0.79
Case 2. In-sample results for different portfolio solutions. 10 industry portfolios. No Short-Sales
NoDur Durbl
Manuf Enrgy HiTec Telcm Shops Hlth Utils Other
GMV – Gloabal Minimum Variance portfolio
Expected return = 0.93
Allocation
0.30
0.00
0.03
Risk = 3.70
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.06
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
TP – Tangent portfolio
Expected return = 1.03
Allocation
0.53
0.00
0.02
Risk = 3.90
0.07
0.00
MSR – Maximum Sharpe Ratio portfolio (rf = 0.9)
Expected return = 1.076 Risk =4.14
Allocation
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
MCESR – Maximum Cross-Efficiency Sharpe Ratio portfolio (rf = 0.576)
Expected return = 1.07
Allocation
0.63
0.00
0.00
Risk = 4.09
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 12
Case 2. Efficient Frontiers for ten industry portfolios.
Table 8
Case 2. Change in portfolio value for the period from 2014-01-07 to 2014-06-02.
Portfolio
Short Sales No Short Sales
GMV
32.7%
32.9%
Tangent Portfolio
29.8%
35.1%
-14.3%
33.5%
25.5%
36.1%
MSR (rf = 0.9)
MCESR
5.
23
Conclusions
This paper proposes a new portfolio selection strategy based on a cross-efficiency evaluation. We
compare the new allocation with the classic global minimum and tangent portfolios through a
numerical study. The results show that our allocation is comparable with the others in terms of
performance in the out-sample period.
We have derived an explicit expression for the MCESR portfolio when short sales are allowed,
and proposed procedures to obtain it when short sales are not allowed. We have also found a
relationship between the slopes of the three portfolios considered and that between the MCESR
portfolio with the expected returns of the GMV and TP portfolios.
24
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
Figure 13
Case 2. Returns from 2014-01-07 to 2014-06-02. With Short Sales
Figure 14
Case 2. Returns from 2014-01-07 to 2014-06-02. Without Short Sales
For future research, we plan to apply this new portfolio solution (MCESR) to a large testbed in
order to investigate their advantages over the rest.
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
25
Appendix
Proof of Proposition 2.
∗
∗
The efficient portfolio i = (σM
SRi , rM SRi ) that maximizes the cross-
efficiency CEi , in the interval [r1 , r2 ], is reached when
∗
∗
ri∗ = rGM
V + σGM V
∗
∗
rM
rM
SR2 − r2
SR1 − r1
−
∗
∗
σ
σM
SR1
∗M SR2
∗
rM SR2 − r2 rGM
V − r2
−
σ∗
∗
σGM
M SR2
V
ln ∗
∗
rM SR1 − r1 rGM
−
r
1
V
−
∗
∗
σM SR1
σGM V
The cross efficiency of portfolio i, CEi , depends of the risk-free rate, ri , associated with the
portfolio i. We can considered CEi as a function of ri , for ri ∈ [rmin , rmax ]. We can write CEi (ri )
as follows
∗
rM
SR
CEi (ri ) = ∗ i
σM SRi
Z
rmax
rmin
∗
1
σM
SR
drf − ∗
∗
rM SR − rf
σM SRi
Z
rmax
rmin
∗
σM
SR rf
drf
∗
rM SR − r
From expressions (4), (9) and (10), using notation of (5), we can derivate the following identities
for the expected return and variance of GMV and MSR portfolios:
1
∗
σM
SR
∗
rGM
V − rf
= c − b rf ,
∗2
σGM
V
1
∗
σGM
V = √ ,
b
c
∗
rGM
V = ,
b
=q
c − b rf
a − 2c rf + b
,
and
rf2
∗
σM
SR
∗
rM SR − rf
=q
∗
rM
a − c rf
SR
=q
,
∗
σM
SR
a − 2c rf + b rf2
1
,
a − 2c rf + b rf2
and write the the cross efficiency, CEi (ri ), in terms of variable ri .
c − b ri
a − c ri
I1 − p
I2
CEi (ri ) = p
2
a − 2c ri + b ri
a − 2c ri + b ri2
where
I1 =
1
rmax − rmin
Z
rmax
rmin
drf
q
a − 2c rf + b
The function CEi (Ri ) has first derivate
and
rf2
I2 =
1
rmax − rmin
Z
rmax
rmin
rf drf
q
a − 2c rf + b rf2
(27)
26
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
CEi′ (ri )
p
a − 2cri + bri2 − (a − cri )(br − c)/ a − 2cri + bri2
I1 −
=
2
p
a − 2cri + bri2
p
p
−b a − 2cri + bri2 − (c − bri )(bri − c)/ a − 2cri + bri2
−
I2
p
2
2
a − 2cri + bri
−c
=
p
(c2 ri − abri )I1 + (ba − c2 )I2
.
p
3
a − 2cri + bri2
It is left to show that CEi′ (ri ) = 0 for ri = I2 /I1 , therefore, ri = I2 /I1 is a point with slope zero,
and it is a candidate to a maximum in the interval [rmin , rmax ]. The second derivate of the function
CEi (ri ) is given by the following expression
p
3
(c2 − ab)I1
a − 2cri + bri2
3 ((ba − c2 )I2 + (c2 − ab)I1 ri ) (bri − c)
CEi′′ (ri ) =
−
p
p
6
5
a − 2cri + bri2
a − 2cri + bri2
(28)
and the second term of (28) is zero at ri = I2 /I1 , and
CE ′′ (I2 /I1 ) =
(c2 − ab)I1
(a − 2c I2 /I1 + b I22 /I12 )
Since Σ−1 is positive definite matrix, then (µ − r)T Σ−1 (µ − r) = a − 2cr + br2 > 0, with discriminant
4(c2 − ab) < 0, then the second derivate at ri = I2 /I1 , CE ′′ (I2 /I1 ), is less to 0.
Next, we show the expression of I2 /I1 .
(rmax − rmin )I1 =
Z
(rmax − rmin )I2 =
Z
rmax
rmin
rmax
rmin
"
√ q
1
q
= √ ln
b a − 2crf + brf2 + brf − c
b
a − 2crf + brf2
drf
rf drf
q
=
a − 2crf + brf2
1q
√ q
c
= √ 3 ln
b a − 2crf + brf2 + brf − c +
a − 2crf + brf2
b
b
Now, we can write the above expression using the identities of (27) as follows:
∗
(rmax − rmin )I1 = σGM
V
rmax
∗
∗
rM
rGM
SR2 − r2
V − r2
−
σ∗
∗
σGM
M SR2
V
ln ∗
∗
−
r
r
M SR1
rGM V − r1
1
−
∗
∗
σM
σGM
SR1
V
#rmax
rmin
rmin
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
27
∗
∗
rM
rGM
SR2 − r2
V − r2
−
σ∗
∗
σGM
M SR2
V
∗
∗
(rmax − rmin )I2 = rGM V σGM V ln ∗
+
∗
rM SR1 − r1 rGM
−
r
1
V
−
∗
∗
σM SR1
σGM V
∗
∗
rM SR2 − r2 rM SR1 − r1
∗2
+ σGM V
−
∗
∗
σM
σM
SR2
SR1
and, finally we can write the maximum ri as
∗
∗
ri∗ = rGM
V + σGM V
Proof of Proposition 3.
∗
∗
rM
rM
SR2 − r2
SR1 − r1
−
∗
∗
σ
σM
SR1
∗M SR2
∗
rM SR2 − r2 rGM
V − r2
−
σ∗
∗
σGM
M SR2
V
ln ∗
∗
−
r
r
M SR1
rGM V − r1
1
−
∗
∗
σM
σGM
SR1
V
(29)
Exist a Pythagorean relationship between the slopes of the Tangent and
Global Minimum portfolios and the slope of the asymptote of Wρ .
m2T P = m2ah + m2GM V
(30)
From expressions (5), we can derivate the following identities for the mT P , mah and mGM V slopes:
mT P =
√
a,
mah =
r
ab − c2
,
b
and
c
mGM V = √ .
b
(31)
and now, we can derivate the relationship m2T P = m2ah + m2GM V ,
m2ah + m2GM V =
ab − c2 c2
+ = a = m2T P
b
b
Proof of Corollary 2.
∗
The maximum cross-efficiency (MCESR) portfolio in [0, rGM
V ] depends
only of Minimal Global Variance and Tangent portfolios.
28
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
ri∗
=
∗
rGM
V
s
1 −
ln
s
rT∗ P
∗
rGM
V
s
rT∗ P
−1
∗
rGM
V
s
!
rT∗ P
− 1 − ln
−1
∗
rGM
V
rT∗ P
−
∗
rGM
V
!
From (27) and (31), we can derivate the following expressions:
a/c
a
rT∗ P
m2T P
=
=
=
, then
√
2
∗
m2GM V
c/b rGM
V
c2 / b
mT P
=
mGM V
s
rT∗ P
∗
rGM
V
2
ab−c
ab − c2 ab
rT∗ P
m2ah
b
=
=
−
1
=
=
− 1, then
∗
m2GM V
c2 /b
c2
c2
rGM
V
m2T P
=
m2ah
a
ab−c2
b
=
a/c
r∗
= ∗ T P∗
, then
a/c − c/b rT P − rGM V
mT P
mah
From the expression (21), it is left to show that (32) is true.
s
mah
rT∗ P
=
−1
∗
mGM V
rGM
V
s
rT∗ P
=
∗
rT∗ P − rGM
V
(32)
M. Landete, J.F. Monge and J.L Ruiz: Determining the best Sharpe ratio portfolio using a cross-efficiency evaluation
29
References
[1] P. Artzener, F. Delbaen, J.M. Eber, and D. Heth. Coherent measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, 3: 203-228,
1999.
[2] A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski. Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Operations Research Letters, 25:
1–13. 1999.
[3] D. Bertsimas and D. Pachamanova. Robust multiperod portfolio management in the presence of transaction cost.
Computers and Operations Research, 35:3–17, 2008.
[4] N. Chapados. Portfolio Choice Problems. An Introductory Survey of Single and Multiperiod Models. Springer,
2011.
[5] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. em European Journal
of Operational Research, 2:429444, 1978.
[6] V. DeMiguel and F.J. Nogales. Portfolio Selection with Robust Estimation. Operations Research, 57, 560–577.
2009.
[7] V. DeMiguel, L. Garlappi and R. Uppal. Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient is the 1/N Portfolio
Strategy? Review of Financial Studies, 18, 1219–1251. 2009.
[8] D. Diez and N. Christou. StockPortfolio package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/stockPortfolio/stockPortfolio.pdf
[9] J.R. Doyle and R. Green. Efficiency and cross-efficiency in data envelopment analysis: Derivatives, meanings and
uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45: 567–578, 1994.
[10] F. J. Fabozzi, D. Huang and G. Zhou Robust portfolios: contributions from operations research and finance.
Annals of Operations Research, 176: 191-202, 2010.
[11] D.U.A. Galagedera. A new perspective of equity market performance. Journal of International Financial Markets,
Institutions and Money, 26, 333–357. 2013
[12] D. Goldfarb and G. Iyengar. Robust portfolio selection problems. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28: 1–38,
2003.
[13] H. Jin, H.M. Markowitz and X.Y. Zhou. A note on semi variance. Mathematical Finance, 16: 53-61, 2006.
[14] P. Krokhmal, J. Palmquist, and S. Uryasev. Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and
constraints. The journal of Risk, 4: 11-27, 2002.
[15] S. Lim, K.W. Oh and J. Zhu. Use of DEA cross-eficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to
Korean stock market. European Journal of Operational Research, 236: 361–368, 2014.
[16] R. Mansini, W. Ogryczak and M. Grazia-Speranza. Twenty years of linear programming based portfolio optimization European Journal of Operations Research, 234: 518–535, 2014.
[17] H.M. Markowitz. Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7: 77-91, 1952.
[18] H.M. Markowitz. Portfolio Slection: Efficient Diversification of Investment. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
London, Sydney, 1959.
[19] D. Nawrocki. A brief history of downside risk measures. Journal of Investing, 8: 9-25, 1999.
[20] E. Pätäri, T. Leivo and S. Honkapuro. Enhancement of equity portfolio performance using data envelopment
analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 220, 786–797. 2012.
[21] B. Pfaff. Financial Risk Modelling and Portfolio Optimization with R. Wiley, 2013.
[22] T.R. Sexton, R.H. Silkman and A.J. Hogan. Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In: Silkman,
R.H. (Ed.), Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
pp 73–105, 1986.
[23] R. Tütüncü and M. Koenig. Robust asset allocation. Annals of Operations Research, 132: 157-187, 2004.
[24] R. H. Tütüncü. Optimization in Finance, Advance Lecture on Mathematical Science and Information Science,
2003.